MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292608055 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.16033

Inventions on phosphate‐free chemical leavening

2022· article· en· W4292608055 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Quality and Safety Studies
Canadian institutionsCegep de Saint HyacintheAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeavening agentChemistrySodium bicarbonatePhosphateFood scienceOrganic chemistryFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Phosphate‐based acid‐reacting compounds are major constituents of chemical leavening, which also contain gas‐releasing compounds such as sodium bicarbonate. The aim of this study was to review phosphate‐free leavening acids according to the patent literature, a source of information that is rarely cited. Not less than 65 phosphate‐free acids were mentioned in patent specifications on chemical leavening that were filed between 1836 and 2021; most of these novel acid‐reacting materials were first introduced in letters patent for inventions, 138 in total. Inventors had more interest in tartrates, lactates, sulphates and lactones. In the recent years, there has been renewed interest for highly wholesome, nonsynthetic, aluminium‐free, phosphate‐free and sodium‐free baking powder formulations that would not impart off‐taste to bakery foods. Acid‐free activating materials such as calcium chloride have been proposed to reduce the level of chemical leavening in bakery foods and improve their flavour.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it